Andrew Brown says (A systematic refusal to admit reality, 21 November) that the Church of England has committed suicide. Maybe it has, although resurrection is a possibility. But his inquest has got the verdict wrong. This is wilful murder. The minority in synod who blocked women bishops represents a group that has lost the argument, and will eventually have to choose between accepting the will of God and the church or leaving it. But until that happens, they are determined to do as much damage as they can. Their demands would undermine the ministry of women bishops and clergy, and institutionalise discrimination.

They claim they are doing this either because on theological grounds they believe women cannot be bishops, or because it might delay reunion with Rome. Their theological reasons give a couple of verses from Paul's epistles priority over Jesus's words and actions that affirm the equality and calling of all the children of God. In due time Rome will wake up to the value of women's ministry, and the C of E may be found lagging behind. Those in the church who recognise the demands of the Gospel and the calling of the Holy Spirit must now work to elect to synod more people who really represent the lay members of the church. We will have women bishops, perhaps before this decade is out. Until then, my sympathy goes to those women who are called to leadership, and whose call has been obstructed.Robert DimmickReading

• The C of E can recover from the General Synod's voting debacle if it acts quickly to retain confidence (Church in crisis as it turns its back on women bishops, 21 November). Notwithstanding some complex administrative logistics, it would be advisable for the church's administration to poll the church's entire laity within the next year. If three-quarters of a million church members were asked to vote for or against women bishops, the much clearer picture that is needed would emerge.

The synod's voting pattern on women bishops showed a clear majority in the houses of bishops and clergy. Additionally, it also showed a clear majority in the house of laity. But, due to the voting rules that required a two-thirds majority, voting in the laity did not provide the two-thirds level of support required by church governance. Overall, however, there was majority support for women bishops across all three synod houses. In order to clarify what the membership wants, a referendum poll of its entire laity would provide the mandate as well as the basis for further discussion within the C of E.Elizabeth J OakleyMember of the Christian Learning Group, Diocese of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich

• Lucy Winkett (A disaster for my church, 21 November) might consider a couple of possibilities. It might, for one thing, just have been the case that, at the time of the founding of Christianity, women were considered to be of such irreplaceable importance in the community, the home and the family, that it would have been wrong to remove them from these. It's one thing to ask a few fishermen to chuck down their nets, quite another to ask a woman to abandon those who depended on her totally. So this may, just, have been an esteem of women and not a degradation. Secondly, faith and belief are not empirical or trendy fashions. Personally, I'd welcome female bishops, though it's none of my business. Most importantly, I wish no hurt to anyone by forcing my ever-so-modern views upon them. They hold to their religions, I guess, for a sense of permanence, even eternity, not just to look good in the columns of the Guardian.Ian FlintoffOxford

• While waiting for the synod to see sense, enlightened dioceses could make some progress by creating job-sharing episcopal appointments. A female acting bishop could live in the palace and fulfil the management and preaching role, while her male assistant could accompany her and step forward to lay on his episcopal hands when sacramental powers are required. Many retired bishops strongly support the ordination of women, and might be persuaded to be "runners" to episcopal "batswomen".Priscilla Bench-CaponWest Kirby, Wirral

• On the parliament website, under "working in the House of Lords", it states: "It is House of Lords policy that there must be no discrimination on grounds of gender, marital status." Clearly an exception is made for the 26 lords spiritual who represent the established church. There is a strong case now for a reformed upper house to abide by its own policies and exclude any participants who represent organisations that are institutionally and culturally discriminatory.Professor David StephensBrighton, East Sussex

• Tony Benn once proposed that the UK's parliamentary constituencies could be geographically paired, with separate male and female lists of candidates drawn up. Each voter could then choose both a man and a woman to represent them at Westminster – or not. Something similar could surely be done with the 44 dioceses of the C of E, which might then have 22 male and 22 female bishops acting equally as "parents-in-God" to their flocks, though some individual "sheep" would undoubtedly prefer the "voice" of one parent over the over. But the collaborative "episcope" (or oversight) exercised by such partner-shepherds would serve as a helpful model of less hierarchical and monocratic authority.Fr Alec MitchellManchester

• Down the road from Westminster Abbey is the great Roman Catholic Westminster Cathedral. Its congregation, I believe, is welcoming and understanding. Could this little journey be recommended to those dissident laity, fresh from their pyrrhic victory over the C of E?David HolmesHalesworth, Suffolk

• Lucy Winkett is right in recognising that the arguments of traditionalists in the C of E, both Catholic and Evangelical, are based on the social subordination of women 2,000 years ago, perpetuated today as theological convictions from either tradition or scripture. For me, the last straw, after 37 years' ordained ministry in the C of E, was when the then suffragan bishop of Whitby refused to ordain the curate in our parish because the curate's wife, already a priest, would take a full part in the service. I became a Quaker.

A consequence of the current arrangements is that women priests in the suffragan see of Whitby have never had a bishop who recognised their valid ordination as priests. There is no provision for them to apply to be subject to the jurisdiction of a bishop who does.Michael WrightMiddlesbrough

• All the barriers put up by the synod to prevent women from becoming bishops cannot stop the Holy Spirit from enabling women to lead people to God by proclaiming the all-embracing love of God for everyone. That is what matters, not women's entry into the hierarchy of an institution. Una KrollBury, Lancashire (retired priest of the Church of England)

• Well, I never. It seems the Church of England operates on an outdated and irrational belief system. Can we all just shut up about it now?Steve PeacockBirmingham

• In 1662, the crown and the episcopate made short work of dealing with pleas for freedom of conscience in belief. Parliament passed an Act of Uniformity that led to almost 20% of clergy leaving their posts. Over almost 30 years' penal legislation failed to suppress dissent. Toleration in 1689 ended the persecution, although it did not amend the discriminatory laws. There are still public posts restricted to Anglicans. If the Church of England is now to be comprehensive of all shades of Christian opinion, as the conservative Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics are pleading, is there any hope of special provisions for those of us who would rather not have bishops at all?Stephen OrchardMatlock, Derbyshire (Member of the United Reformed Church)

• That the Church of England is institutionally sexist in the 21st century is a national disgrace. Of the 44 dioceses, 42 voted for the legislation for women bishops yet their representatives in the house of laity did not reflect this view, which says much about the outdated, unaccountable processes that are supposed to be "democratic" in the Church of England. There seems to be none, or very little contact, between these representatives and the congregations they are meant to represent. How many congregations even know who their representatives are? The whole issue needs urgent examination.

Nor must we forget that a substantial number in both the house of bishops and the house of clergy voted against the legislation. Shame on you all, you zealots of sexism.June PurvisPortsmouth

• If I understand the situation correctly, it wasn't the majority of (male) bishops or the clergy who opposed the ordination of women bishops but a small group of lay people, including women. It has been my experience as a laywoman and then as a clergywoman in the United Church of Canada that some laypersons, who feel powerless in their own lives, will use the all-accepting church to boost their own self-esteem by throwing their weight around in any way they can. Secondly there are some who can't think outside the box on certain issues and therefore oppose anything that implies change. These same people will pick and choose verses from scripture to back up their ill-informed positions.

We are reluctant to challenge them lest they leave an already sinking ship, taking their money with them. And so what we have here in the Church of England is a very small group of otherwise powerless people opposing the ordination of women bishops and feeling proud that they had the power to stop it, claiming it needs more studying and dialogue. The hurt they have caused and the damage they have done is incalculable. They have little if any idea what tremendous gifts women have to offer to the church's ministry and how the church is the poorer because of their prideful attitude.Rev Joanne SorrilWhitby, Ontario, Canada

• Need the Church of England beat itself up so badly? After all, last week, police and crime commissioners were elected on a – mostly – less than 15% turnout. Funny old world.Canon Derek BrownKidderminster, Worcestershire